As one who has been critical of Huet's play from his first appearance, it is time for me to eat crow.  At the same time, let me say that I think Rollie Melanson deserves to be recognized for his contributions.  Huet no longer stays down for so long, and there have been improvements in other aspects of his game.  So, here it is:

Sorry, Christobal.

Which brings me to another point.  I thought  Brooklynhab's "form letter" was right on.  Sure, it's easy to get frustrated with particular players on any given night (or fifteen or so nights.)  When I read posts about so-and-so being an "average" player, I find myself agreeing.  After all, with thirty teams the term "average" takes on a statistically based meaning.  We argue with each other when we become convinced that somebody is living in the tails of the bell shaped curve.  Stooges and marginal talent live in one tail (on the left), and the stellar workhorses and goal scorers live over to the right. Together these groups acount for 27 in 10,000. (Yes, I know there are not 10,000 NHL players.  Think percentages.) 

So what if we did this every now and again... that is, to turn attention from indivuals and focus on the execution of the game itself?  (Sure, the two are not easily seperable.)  But here's an example of what I'm trying to say.

In the second Boston game, and in the Philly game, we saw forchecking, backchecking, net crashing, hard hits from small players - in other words, offensive play that is fun to watch and puts shots on the net.

In the Buffalo game, by the second period, we were back in the dump-it-in and run mode.  So, what's the message?  Players are forgetful of what brings success?  Coaches get gun-shy and fall back on the familiar?  Mars and Jupiter are lined up improperly with the sun?

Point is, there is a lot of hockey savy on this site and, as much as I enjoy the witticisms of some of the player rants,  I really like to hear critical commentary from everyone as well!

There.  Now I can go put on my 'jamies and take a nap.